This is a typical example of the confounding of the term An-archy (Αναρχία) with the term A-nomia (Ανομία). As soon as you have a "biggest gang in control" you have an -archy (αρχή). You can have an -archy and have anomia: ie when a group utilises its grip on power to benefit itself rather than to ensure the "correct" or "smooth" functioning of society. That is what is happening currently. We do not have anarchy right now, we have anomia.

Wonderful. Thank you for enlightening me about this beautiful language.

I believe what Alan Moore means by anarchy is simpler however, i.e. a society which has order without the direction of a government. That this is often thought of as a society without any government whatsoever, but that in fact, society is inherently ordered without the help of government, even when a government is in place.

You see, unlike you, my dear Ben, I was never a Communist. What that means is that I studied Marx and Marxism (and neo-Marxists) directly. Even going as far as to study Hegel. What that means is that unlike Communists,that normally read the Manifesto and whatever skewed interpretations of Marx the Communist cult group they happen to belong to regurgitates in their direction, I have read, studied and discussed Marx extensively. Given the attitude of myopic zeal that you currently display I would guess you were some type of 4th Internationalist in your past incarnation?

Haha, well, essentially my philosophy has always been to follow the argument wherever it leads me. To, above all, act honestly and have honest beliefs. Not to lie to myself, i.e. if I come to know the world is A, not to act and believe as if the world is B.

I studied Marx through reading the entire collected works of Marx and Engels (including the rash filled letters), and examining whether or not I agreed with each premise and conclusion made. The good part that I agreed with outweighed the part I disagreed with, to the point that I thought a stateless society beyond the law of value to be possible. That was the crux, and upon examining the thoughts which Marx had upon the question of a revolution from the capitalist phase of production to the communist phase of production, I came to realise that he did not have an answer, and upon examining the issue wider, found that no one else did either.

The other issue I came to realise was that Marx makes a lot of strange manipulations to make his math work (and I don't mean the transformation "problem," which isn't one). He held that sum of values are equal to the sum of prices in the world, and that the production of value precedes the receipt of value, prices in their totality are not only equal to, but also determined by, the total value produced. The magic of how this can occur is really beyond explanation, so I accepted that both prices and values are subjective judgments. Thus rendering the law of value non-objective in my estimation and making it impossible for me to be a Marxist.

I have studied Hegel also, enjoyed most of his work, and I believe he's far less crucial to understanding Marx than people seem to think.

Politically I would say that I am an Autonomist (with Anarchist leanings). What that means is that I am noy bound by the political/social/economic ideology of any system. I am quite happy to apply the logic/methods of almost any system as long as it is liberatory and leads to a reduction in poverty and suffering for the majority of people. I am not the kind of moron that will blind myself to the injustices of a system, just because I happen to identify with that system.

They can be, indirectly. I may give a gift and not expect something (directly) in return, but do it in an attempt to curry favor.

But if you believe the statement in any way is realistic you still have to explain how one can achieve socially direct labour without running into all of the pitfalls and distractions which Marx enumerated amongst the attempts contemporary to him.

Mutual aid.

I studied Marx through reading the entire collected works of Marx and Engels (including the rash filled letters)..

Masochist! That would be enough to either send somebody straight to the looney bin, or turn them into a born-again capitalist!

They can be, indirectly. I may give a gift and not expect something (directly) in return, but do it in an attempt to curry favor.

Then I think we can agree that there is something of value being exchanged for. Not doing this is the kind of altruism which I believe is meant by the perfection of generosity.

Mutual aid.

Mutual aid also presupposes evaluations based upon levels of risk and value, without such it will be a quick dud. Whilst I believe people are good natured enough to maintain order without a government, I don't think they are good natured enough to not take advantage of such arrangements. Many of the best anarchist models which I have seen do indeed suggest arranging society and the economy with the use of insurance companies, but they're only possible with some form of money and evaluation. They evaluate risks with possible clients, and punish abusers or those who don't live up to payments by limiting their access to future services in various degrees and for various periods of time.

Money is not an inherent evil, it's just a concept, and both was and is used by the Sangha for various matters - even though our ideal image of the Sangha often makes us think that this wasn't so in the Buddha's day. If it makes a peaceful world possible, rather than impossible, I see no reason to reject it's use in such an endeavour outright.

Masochist! That would be enough to either send somebody straight to the looney bin, or turn them into a born-again capitalist!

And I don't want to explain or respond to why I said x,y,z, anymore. Because I'm 99% sure that my statements are clear to others.

If you're trying to convince me, as you said you were, (boldface by Nilasarasvati) then the fact that other people are clear, doesn't help you in that task.

I'm don't expect you to read my mind; I expect you to read my words. Which you didn't.

Nilasarasvati said: I'm more focused on the interpersonal dynamic in this thread and how it's failed/failing. You seem to be trying to "convince." I'm not...

That's why I'm not making an argumentum ad populum--because I'm not saying "the reason we're correct is that we outnumber you." I''m not saying we're correct. I'm just saying we're intelligent people you haven't really communicated with as such. Our words have passed off you like water from a lotus. Maybe that's a good thing, but in my perception a lot of things people have said in this discussion are like a whack-a-mole you reflexively contradict without really understanding them.

On a positive note, I believe the discussion with Greg Kavarnos is a great counterexample to this dynamic I've been talking about (at least at this point). Please go on.

Hilarious. Let's play hot potato with green pieces of paper, nothing is more productive of value.

This is fundamentally not about value, but about currency. A government can increase the money supply as long as its debt is denominated in its own currency. This is why the economy has begun to grow again. Public debt is not the problem, bubbles in private debt are along with speculative bubbles in derivatives based on private debt.

If properly spent on labour intensive infrastructure projects it bootstraps the economy in times of low private sector activity.

Who pays?

The public through equitable taxation.

Ben Yuan wrote:

We don't have a debt problem in first world countries right now. We have a revenue problem.

Deficit problem.

Deficits like we are running in the US are a direct result of paying for two illegal wars and a huge contraction in the tax base. Hence it is a revenue problem and not a deficit problem. Now that the wars are winding down, as the economy grows and taxes return to more equitable levels on the wealthy, the deficit will become a surplus.

Ben Yuan wrote:

As the rich extract more advantage, they should shoulder more of the burden for infrastructure costs.

Privatise infrastructure. Problem solved.

That solves nothing. Do you think any business would prefer privatized insterstate highways? Do you think any business is going to want to run roads that nobody lives on? How about a privatized military, police or fire department? You are simply trying to legitimize selfishness and greed. It's mind-boggling that a buddhist can attempt to make the argument that the only binding glue in society is self-interest. Just wow, dude.

Ben Yuan wrote:

You posited in an earlier post that the poor were better off before the New Deal.

No I didn't.

Oh yes you did: "Everyone knows that poverty was on the whole decreasing in minority populations before welfare kicked in." It's a completely false statement, not to mention an argumentum ad populum. If everyone knows it, you should have no problem substantiating your claim with statistics.

I can't help but thinking that you will have a much more nuanced view of the world once you move out of your parents' house.

I think it's funny that wherever you go, debates about economics always seem to center around the US.

This is fundamentally not about value, but about currency. A government can increase the money supply as long as its debt is denominated in its own currency. This is why the economy has begun to grow again. Public debt is not the problem, bubbles in private debt are along with speculative bubbles in derivatives based on private debt.

Of course it's about value. If you're just shifting currency around you're not actually making anyone wealthier.

The public through equitable taxation.

So you want to take away money from people, so that they have more money to spend?

If you think public works investments are going to provide a return, you already said that the economy is on the upturn. By the time the projects have been prepared and vetted, the benefits will not pay off and they'll end up costing us more. The problem is that it is impossible to have shovel ready jobs in boom years for Keynesian theory to really be put into practice. Moreover, any effect such approaches DO have, need to be balanced with tax cuts during recessions.

It's funny how the most avid proponents of Keynesianism, don't seem to understand Keynes' thought.

Deficits like we are running in the US are a direct result of paying for two illegal wars and a huge contraction in the tax base. Hence it is a revenue problem and not a deficit problem.

The statement you made does not follow logically. It is not valid to claim that the problem is a revenue problem because it is spent on X and because we have less Y. All you're doing is admitting the problem is a deficit problem. And moreover, you are trying to obscure the truth with complete falsehoods: Defense spending in 2012 was 19% of US Federal Spending, Medicare & Medicaid and Social Security were 45% of US Federal Spending. Personally I think that such "mutual aid" are state level affairs - problem solved.

Now that the wars are winding down, as the economy grows and taxes return to more equitable levels on the wealthy, the deficit will become a surplus.

When? O Prophet, please give me your magic predictions.

Meanwhile, in reality world, each citizen's share of the national debt is higher than the national average income. The US is toast. There is not going to be a second American century because they were reckless and irresponsible with spending.

Do you think any business would prefer privatized insterstate highways?

Of course, they'll pay less tax that way, and won't have to pay for the highways they don't use.

Do you think any business is going to want to run roads that nobody lives on.

If no one needs the road, what's the point? It's just wasting money. Don't tell me you expect me to pay for roads to nowhere involuntarily. That's just torture.

How about a privatized military, police or fire department?

No, I think these are best run by the government.

But better security is always available using private companies. Just consider, if you rely on the police for household security, suppose someone vandalizes your property, the police will write it down in a log, but will likely not do anything more. On the other hand, in the private sector you can purchase security cameras and alarms to protect your property - do you really believe the police would put these up for you? They don't care.

Or for a simpler example consider if you lose a cat. If you tell the police, they might write it down, but won't distribute fliers asking for people to report it. You have to distribute the fliers yourself, or pay someone else to, and offer a reward.

Fire protection is best provided by the government. But private options are also often going to provide better safety. E.g. installing sprinkler systems, etc.

You are simply trying to legitimize selfishness and greed.

No, I am trying to avoid the use of force as much as possible. To make sure society is more peaceful, and to make sure society is voluntary. Being greedy and selfish are individual emotions, and are regulated by your own mind, not by the government.

If you want to tax me, you are doing so at gun point, because if I don't choose to comply I will be thrown in prison. But in the private sector, people choose, people have agreements and decide for themselves voluntarily, without the use of guns, without the use of batons or prison bars.

You are just trying to legitimize violence, brutality, theft and murder.

It's mind-boggling that a buddhist can attempt to make the argument that the only binding glue in society is self-interest.

It's amazing that a Buddhist like you can attempt to argue for mass oppression, abuse, theft and murder.

It's amazing that a Buddhist like you believes that big brother, the government, controls whether you are greedy or selfish.

You have no hope on the Buddhist path if you think you have to rely on the government for your salvation. The Buddha said, be a light unto yourself.

Oh yes you did: "Everyone knows that poverty was on the whole decreasing in minority populations before welfare kicked in." It's a completely false statement, not to mention an argumentum ad populum. If everyone knows it, you should have no problem substantiating your claim with statistics.

That is not the New Deal. That was in the early 70s.

However, the New Deal maintained the Great Depression for over a decade more than it had to be.

Not only that, but it implemented policies directly taken from Mussolini's Fascist Italy.

The Great Depression only ended after the death of FDR and implementation of Republican tax cuts in 1946.

I can't help but thinking that you will have a much more nuanced view of the world once you move out of your parents' house.

I can't help thinking that you would have a much more compassionate and Buddhist view of the world if you stop worshiping fascism and promoting mass brutality and oppression.

Samsara: An unremittingly repeating thread which can never result in satisfaction.

May this board be a cause for the growth of renunciation mind in all of us. May the suffering of beings clinging to I, me, and mine arouse irresistible compassion.May the rigidity of our dualistic fixations to I and thee be washed away by the nectar of Manjugosha's speech. May we all perfect the bhumis and paths without another syllable.

Ben Yuan wrote:By the way, Karma Dorje, if I came across as overly aggressive in my replies to you, I'd like to apologize. I think I let your comments get the better of my judgment as to what is friendly speech.

Hi Ben, thank you for the sentiment but it's quite alright! I don't take it personally and it's good that you are passionate about what you believe in. I think it's the nature of the medium that things come across a bit harsher than they are intended. We Canadians have a reputation for politeness to keep up though.